TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Griffin v. Thompson

Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin v. Robert Thompson

Griffin v. Thompson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244 (1844)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 28, 1844
Judges
Daniel
Citations
43 U.S. 24411 L. Ed. 2532 How. 2441844 U.S. LEXIS 328
Headnotes
A marshal has no, right to receive bank notes in discharge of an execution . unless authorized to do so by the plaintiff. .If the marshal does receive such papers,-the court, in the! exercise of its power to correct the irregularities of its officer, will refuse amotion of-the defendant to have satisfaction entered on the judgment, and refuse also to quash a second fieri facias. Upon a.certificate-of division from the judges of the. Circuit Court for the southern district pf Mississippi.
Summary
This was a motion made' by Thomas Griffin and Hugh Erwin to havé -satisfaction- entered on an execution offieri facias, which issued from the clerk’s office' of the court against them on the 4th day of June, 1840, in favour of Robert Thompson, for the sum of $>1*740 02, with interest thereon at the rate pf 8 per cent, per annum, from the 7th day of November,-1839, until 'paid, together with costs. And also to quash an execution oí fieri fiadas' which issued against them. in favour of said Thompson, on the samp judgment, on the 6th day of November, 1841. In support, of this motion, the plaintiffs below read in evidence first, an execution offt-fa- numbered 874, which was sued out of the court against Griffin in favour of Thompson on the 1st day of January, 1840, returnable on the 1st Monday of May ensuing, for the sum of $1740 .02 and the costs, this being the amount of a judgment recovered in the court on the 7th day of November, 1839. Upon this execution was'endorsed the return of the marshal, dated May the 4th, 1840, setting forth the levy of that process on the 25th of March, 1840, on .certain subjects of property, the execution of a forthcoming bond by. Griffin with Ervin as surety fpr'the delivery of the property at the-day and place of sale, and the forfeiture of the bond by the failure of • the obligors, to. comply with its condition. Accompanying this return is a receipt in these words: January 2d, 1840. Received on this execution one-thousand dollars in post-notes of the Mississippi Uniqn Bant. Wm. M. Gwin, Marshal, By his deputy, Jno. F. Cook. The plaintiffs next, produced in evidence, their forfeited forthcoming bond with the execution offieri fiadas sued thereon, in favour of Thompson, on the 4th of June, 1840, returnable to the 1st Monday of November with the following endorsements and returns thereon, vizi: ■ Endorsement on Fi. Fa. Ño security of any kind is to be taken. This execution is entitled to a credit of one thousand dollars, paid 2d January, 1840, in Union post-notes. See marshal’s return.onft.fia. Ño. 874, to May term, 1840. (Signed) Wm. Burns, CPk. Marshal’s Return. Made on this case four hundred dollars, Nov. 3d, 1840. Received balance of this, case, in full for costs, &c., say five hundred and fif- ■ teen dollars. Wm. M. Gwin, Marshal, . Nov. 3d, 1840. By W. L. Batto ‘ Dept. They then read in support of their motion the-execution of fieri fiadas sued forth against them in favour of Thompson, .on the 6th day of November, 1841, which execution is the same that the plaintiff in the court below moved to quash. Upon it is the following endorsément:. Endorsement. This execution is entitled' to a credit of $803 47, paid 3d November, 1840, on fi.fa. No. 451, to Nov. term, 1840. No security of any kind is to be taken for balance. W. H. Brown, CPJc. Marshal’s return, stayed by supersedeas,’ received April 1, 1842. A. Miller, Ml. By dept. J.- S. Gooch. They then read in evidence to the court the following receipts which were proved to be signed by,- and in the handwriting of, John F. Cook, who, at the date of said receipts, and before, was' a deputy of William M. Gwiri, marshal .of the southern district of' Mississippi, which receipts are in the words and figures following, to wit: Received of Thomas Griffin the sum of eight hundred dollars, to be applied to part payment of an execution obtained vs.- him at the Nov', term, 1839, of Circuit Court United States'as security for T. Griffin, which amount I am to credit said execution with. December 10th, 1839. W. M. Gwin, Marshal, By his deputy, Jno. F. Cook: " Received of Thomas Griffin the sum of two hundred dollars in Union Bank money, to be applied to a certain execution I hold vs,. said Griffin, or I am to-return the said money, to the said Griffin. Feb’y 17th, 1840. Jno. F. Cook. The said sums'of $8Q0 and $200, mentioned in said receipts, constituting the $1000 in post-notes of the Mississippi Union Bank, returned by the marshal as received oh 2d of January, 1840, on execution offidri facias heréin-before referred to, dated 1st January, 1840. They also read in evidence tp the court the-following additional receipts, to wit: Thompson. ■v. ) Circuit Court U. S. fi.fa. to Nov. term. 1840Griffin and Surety, . Received of Thomas Griffin in the above stated case, the sum of four-hundred dollars in Louisiana money. • Nóv; 3d, 1840. ’ W, M. Gwin, Marshal, Per deputy, Jno. F. .Cook. Received of Thomas Griffin the sum of five hundred dollars, to ' be applied to the payment of an execution, in the hands of the marshal, of Thompson v. Thomas Griffin and sureties. Nor. 1840. Wk. M. Gwin, Marshal, By his deputy Jno. F. Cook. The said Robert Thompson then, in opposition to said motion, read in evidence to thg .court, the judgment pronounced at its November term, 1841, quashing so much of the return of the marshal made on the execution of fieri facias numbered 874, whiqh issued on .the 1st day of January, 1840, as stated that he had.“ received on said execution one thousand dollars in post notes .of the Mississippi Union'Bank,” which jhdgment is in the words and figures following, to wit: “Robert Thompson v. Thomas Griffin.) Motion by the plaintiff to quash that part of thé marshal’s return on fi. fa. No. 874, to May term, 1840, which is as 'follows: ? January 2d, 1840. Received on this execution one thousand dollars in post notes of the Mississippi Union Bank.’ “Motion sustained and said marshal’s return on said.fi.fa. quashed, and an alias fi. fa. ordered, to May term, 1842.” The said Thompson then introduced Joseph Holt as a witness, who being .sworn, stated that he was one of the plaintiff’s attorneys of record, Who obtained the said judgment of $1740 02' against said Thomas Griffin, at the November term, 1839, ofthe court; and that as the attorney of record of the said plaintiff, (Robert Thompson,) he had full authority to collect said judgment, and to control the executions which might issue thereon; that, supposing the execution bn s'aid judgment when issued would come ihto.the hands of the said “Jno. F.-Cook',” deputy marshál;- he had a conversation with him a short time after the judgment was rendered, say some time in the month of November, 1839, in .which he notified the said Cook distinctly, that good money would be required to be collected on said judgment, and that he must receive no other kind of money on the execution, when it should come into his hands. That he saw said Cook several, times during the ensuing winter, but that he (Cook) never mentioned to him that he had made any collection on said judgment. That the first knowledge or intimation witness had of the'receipt of the $1000 in post-notes of the Mississippi Union Bank, mentioned m the return of the said Cook on the execution as collected 2d January, 1840, was in the month of May, 1840, when going into the , marshal’s office at Jackson, Mississippi, he found the said execution had just been returned, with the receipt of the $1000, in post-notes of the- Mississippi Union Bank, endorsed thereon as aforesaid. Witness at once refused to receive said post-notes from the marshal, in part satisfaction of said, execution, and-has ever since refused, and still refuses to receive them. Witness further stated, that at the time . referred to, (May, 1840,) sai.d post-notes had greatly depreciated in value, and were not-worth more than fifty cents to the dollar, and ■ that on the 17th of Fébruaiy, 1840, said post-notes Were worth but seventy-five cents to the dollar. That .he immediately entered a motion to quash said return of the said deputy marshal, (Cook,) which motion was sustained by the court at its November tenn, 1841. Witness further stated that in' a conversation he had held with said Thomas Griffin, he (Griffin) had stated that the $800 mentioned in said receipt, dated 10th December, 1839., and the $200 mentioned in said receipt, dated 17th February, 1840, constituting together the $1000 returned ás made .on .2d January, 1840* in “ post-notes of the Mississippi Union Bank,” were paid by him to said John F. Cook, deputy marshal as aforesaid, at tipies mentioned .in the said receipts respectively, in post-notes of the said Mississippi Union Bank. It was also in proof that, on the 10th day of December, 1839, the post-notes of the Mississippi .Union Bank were current in the state of Mississippi, and were generally received by the sheriffs and marshal unless instructions to the contrary were given by plaintiffs or their attorneys. It was also ¡admitted that Griffin had no actual.notice of the instructions given, by the plaintiff’s attorney in this case to said John F. Cook, deputy marshal. This was all the evidence offered either in support or in opposition'to the plaintiff’s motion. Whereupon on the question .whether satisfaction should bp entered on said execution of fieri facias, which was sued out on the 4th of June, 1840, in favour of said Robert Thompson v. Thomas Griffin ¿nd Hugh Ervin for the sum of $1740 02 with interest and costs as aforesaid; and'also on the question whether said execution offieri facias which was -sued out against the said Griffin and Ervin on the 6th of November, 1841, should be quashed, the judges were opposed in opinion, and the questions were ordered to be certified to this court for decision. The cause was argued, by Henderson for Griffin, the defendant in the original suit below, who had made the motion to have satisfaction entered on the judgment and to quash the second fieri fados ; and by Harrison and Holt for Thompson, the plaintiff below.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Daniel

*256 Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.

. This court is unable to perceive upon what principle of law' either of the objects sought by the motion of the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court cóuíd have been accorded to them. It cannot be questioned that the defendant in that motion was entitled to the full benefit and operation of his execution, and these were to cause to be made for him of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, of his debtor, the ■sum of $1740 02 of lawful money of the United.States. With his claim thus solemnly ascertained of record, we are aware of no authority, from any source, which can compel him to commute it, or to receive in satisfaction thereof any other thing which he shall not . voluntarily elect. But' least of all should such an authority be recognised in a quarter more fruitful than any other of abuses in its exercise ; for instance, from the will either of the debtor, or the officer whose position would enable him in some degree to practise' on both creditor and debtor To permit either the debtor or the officer to impose upon the creditor the receipt of depreciated paper in payment, would"be to permit not merely a repeal of the judgment, but a violation, a virtual abrogation indeed, of the contract on which it was founded; for none can fail to perceive the thousand fraudulent devices for profit or favour which the toleration of such a practice would naturally call into action $o defeat the rights of creditors. The courts of justice might thus be made to subserve only the purposes of dishonesty, and be transformed into engines of monstrous wrong. It has been argued in support of this' motion, that banknotes constitute-good'andlawfiil payment if received; that' as the law recognises their circulation, debtors may lawfully tender them in payment, and creditors may lawfully receive them though not legally bound to do so. Frqm these postulates it is then attempted to draw the following conclusions: 1.- That the marshal is the plaintiff’s agent, who by the execution may receive the plaintiff’s debt. 2. That he who may lawfully receive ■ payment, may have a lawful tender of payment máde to him. 3. That if a tender or payment of' bank-notes to the principal, not by him objected to, is a good tender or payment, the like tender or payment to the agent is equally good. This argument, to say the least of it,- is wholly untenable. ’Tis undoubtedly true that the creditor may receive either bank-notes or blank paper in satisfaction .of his debt, for the reason that his power over that debt is supreme, and he may release it without payment of any kind, if he think proper. But the fallacy of the argument here *257 consists in totally misconceiving the situation and functions of-the marshal. He is properly the officer of the law rather than the agent of the'parties, and is bound to fulfil the behests of the law; and this, too without ' special instruction or admonition from any person. If, then, when commanded to levy a sum of money, he make a return that he has not done this, but has of his own mere will' substituted for money depreciated bank-notes, his. return is an admission, on oath, that he has both disobeyed his' orders and transeendéd' his powers,. ■for legally he has no powers save those he. derives from the precept he is ordered to obey. Can it be doubted that upon application from those whose interests are involved in the performance of his duties by the. marshal, it is the right and the duty of the court in such a case to correct the irregularities of its officer, and to- compel him to perform his duty? There is inherent, in every court a power to supervise the conduct of its officers, and the e ;ecution of its judgments and process; Without this power, courts would be whoEy impotent and.useless. The returns of the marshal in this case upon' the final process in his hands, showing the receipt by him of depreciated bank-paper in satisfaction of that process which ordered him to coEect moneys are held to be departures from the performance of his duty as plainly enjoined by the process itself, are deemed therefore iEegal and void, and ought upon the application of the parly injured thereby to have, been .set aside and annuEed by the court. In conformity with the principles herein sanctioned, vye therefore order it to be certified to the judges of the Circuit Court for the southern' district' of Mississippi,' that satisfaction should not be ■ entered on the execution of fieri facias which was sued out in this case on the 4th of June, 1840, in favour of the said Robert Thompson v. the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh-Ervin, for the. sum of $1740 02 with interest and costs; and farther, that the execution of fi.fa., which was sued out against the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin on the sixth day of November, 1841, should not be quashed; and that the motion of the plaintiff in the Circuit Court Should be overruled ORDER.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, and oh the points and questions on which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, and which were certified to this court for its opinion agreeably to the act of Congress *258 in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, It is the opinion of this court, that satisfaction should not be entered on the execution offieri facias, which was sued out in this case on the 4th of June, 1840, in favour of the said Robert Thompson against the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin for the sum of $1740 02, with interest and costs: and farther, that the execution of ji. fa., which was.sued out against the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin on the 6th day of November, 1841, should not be quashed: and that the motion of the plaintiff in the Circuit Court should be overruled. Whereupon it is now here ordered and ad- ’ judged that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 30 cases

View all citing references →
1873–1874: 11881–1882: 11889–1890: 21895–1896: 31897–1898: 21901–1902: 11923–1924: 11951–1952: 11967–1968: 11985–1986: 11989–1990: 11991–1992: 11995–1996: 12009–2010: 12011–2012: 12015–2016: 12017–2018: 22019–2020: 32021–2022: 22023–2024: 12025–2026: 218732026peak 1895 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fuller v. Harris258 F. Supp. 3d 204 (D.D.C. 2017)
  2. May v. United States104 Fed. Cl. 278 (Fed. Cl. 2012)
  3. Borntrager v. Stevas772 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1985)
  4. Kershaw v. Dyer6 Utah 239 (1889)
  5. Perales v. HarrisNo. 2025-2032 (D.D.C. May 29, 2026)
  6. Sanford v. LauckNo. 2025-2664 (D.D.C. July 30, 2026)

Most recent

  1. Sanford v. LauckNo. 2025-2664 (D.D.C. July 30, 2026)
  2. Perales v. HarrisNo. 2025-2032 (D.D.C. May 29, 2026)
  3. Taylor v. Bureau of Indian AffairsNo. 2023-0850 (D.D.C. May 9, 2023)
  4. O'Connor v. BarnesNo. 2021-2641 (D.D.C. June 2, 2022)
  5. Patterson v. Florida Department of Children and FamiliesNo. 2021-1427 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2021)
  6. Patrick Novak v. United States District CourtNo. 19-1953 (7th Cir. June 17, 2019)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list